Sandeep Malhotra and Others vs Lt. Gen. (Dr. Devinder Dayal Singh Sandhu (Retired))

Mahesh Grover, J.—This order will dispose of all the aforesaid six revision petitions directed by the petitioners against the orders dated 18.1.2010 passed by the Rent Controller and dated 19.5.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority vide which their eviction has been ordered.

The respondent/landlord filed petitions for eviction against the petitioners seeking their eviction on various grounds which included the plea of bona fide necessity for his personal use and on which ground eventually the eviction of the petitioners has been ordered. The petitioners in all the revision petitions question the findings of the Rent Controller, which have been affirmed by the Appellate Authority, on the ground that the landlord is a resourceful person, who does not require the premises for his own use. It has been contended that the need, which has been expressed by the landlord, is that he wants to set up a BPO in the premises in question and for that he requires the entire premises which he intends to pull down in entirety to raise a new building. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that such a need has neither been established nor is it demonstrated sufficiently for the court to record such a conclusion. He further contends that the landlord does not have any experience in the field of BPO and a city like Karnal is hardly a place for setting up the venture which the respondent/landlord is desirous of. He further contends that according to the respondent/landlord himself, the premises rented out to the petitioners are old, but this aspect of the matter was not fortified by any evidence on record. He thus contends that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and liable to be set aside.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and have perused the impugned orders, but I am unable to agree with the contentions which have been raised before this Court. The respondent/landlord has categorically stated that he requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation as he along with his son intend to set up a BPO in the premises. The job of the landlord was made easier by the petitioners when they examined Yogesh Chaba as RW4, who was initially cited as witness by the respondent/landlord, and this witness produced the letter Ex.PX which was written by him to the the Licensing/Registering Authority of the Department of Telecommunications as his opinion justifying the sanction of a licence for setting up a BPO centre at Karnal. Prima facie, this fact was sufficient as a suggestive piece of positive evidence in favour of the respondent/landlord to establish the bona fide need that he had expressed to get the premises vacated.

In Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1998 (2) RCR 533, the Supreme Court observed as follows.

The crux of the ground envisaged in Clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the Clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms of the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.

Similarly, in Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh 2003 (1) RCR 42 it has been observed as under:

the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirements. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own.

Likewise the petitioner cannot question that the landlord has no experience in setting up such a business or that the city and the premises are not conducive enough for a venture to be undertaken by the landlord. The Supreme Court in Ram Babu Agarwal Vs. Jay Kishan Das, observed as under:

We are of the opinion that a person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business. That does not mean that his claim for starting the new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the new business, and sometimes they are successful in the new business also. Hence, we are of the opinion that the High Court should have gone deeper into the question of bona fide need and not rejected it only on the ground that Giriraj has no experience in footwear business.

When the observations of the Supreme Court are applied to the facts of this case, it becomes abundantly clear that it is not merely a desire which has been expressed by the landlord but it is a conclusive manifestation of his own bona fide need which has been rightly appreciated by both the Courts below. There is thus no merit in these revision petitions which warrant dismissal. Ordered accordingly.